TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner calls in question the validity of an order issued by the respondent-Medical Council of India and the recommendations of Migration Sub-Committee declining permission to the petitioner to migrate from the Al-Ameen Medical College, Bijapur to the Siddartha Medical College at Tumkur. A mandamus directing the respondents to permit the proposed migration has also been prayed for. The controversy arises in this following circumstances :the petitioner was selected by the CET Cell to undergo a five years MBBS Course in the Al-Ameen Medical College at Bijapur as a merit candidate. She completed the 1st year of the said course in December, 1996 as is evident from the marks card issued by the University in May, 1997. In September, 1997, she appears to have made an application to the Medical Council of India seeking its permission to migrate from the Al-Ameen College, Bijapur to Siddartha Medical College at Tumkur. The request was made on the basis of a certain kidney ailment, which the petitioner appears to be suffering from. The request was supported by the copies of medical and radiological reports suggesting that the petitioner was suffering from 'bilateral Renal Calculi' and was undergoing treatment with Dr. Dilip Javali, a Specialist at Bangalore. The application made to the MCI inter alia pointed out that she was required to get weekly check-ups from her Doctor and would in that connection be required to travel between Bijapur and Bangalore every week thereby potentially aggravating the disease. It also referred to the No Objection Certificates issued by Al-Ameen College at Bijapur and Siddartha Medical College at Tumkur to her migration from one to the other. A similar certificate had been issued by the Registrar of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences to which the Siddarth Medical College is affiliated. The Director of Medical Education had also expressed his No Objections to the proposed migration. The Medical Council upon consideration of the request rejected the same, aggrieved, whereof the petitioner filed W. P. No. 23987/1998 in this Court, which was allowed by a single Judge of this Court, by order dated 27th of November, 1998. The Director of Medical Education had also expressed his No Objections to the proposed migration. The Medical Council upon consideration of the request rejected the same, aggrieved, whereof the petitioner filed W. P. No. 23987/1998 in this Court, which was allowed by a single Judge of this Court, by order dated 27th of November, 1998. This Court held that the petitioner had fulfilled the procedural requirements for making of the application, and yet failed to obtain the requisite permission apparently on the ground that the disability referred to in Note II of the Regulations mentioned above was not established. The expression 'disability' declared the Court did not mean a disability which incapacitated the candidate from pursuing the course. If that were so, the question of migrating from one Institution to the other would not arise. The provision had, therefore, to be construed reasonably and could only mean that if a candidate is found to be suffering from an illness for which adequate medical facilities are not available at the place of his study, disabling him from continuing the same, migration to another College to overcome that disability may become inevitable. The following passage from the order of this Court is in this regard apposite :-"definitely it cannot mean a disability which incapacitates the candidate to continue the MBBS course, otherwise the question of seeking migration does not arise. Keeping in view the object of the provision provided for migration, this Clause can be reasonably construed only to mean that in proper cases the Council can permit the migration if the candidate is found to be suffering from illness of the nature, for which there is no effective medical facility or treatment at the place of his study, causing disabilities on his part of continuing the same at that place and the migration of such candidate to other Medical College becomes inevitable, so as to overcome that disability, keeping in view the medical facilities available at the proposed place of migration. For this purpose the MCI can ask the candidates concerned to furnish dependable materials to show that at the place of his original admission such facilities are not available and the same are available only at the place where he is seeking migration. Apart from this the MCI through its own agency can ascertain the said facts. For this purpose the MCI can ask the candidates concerned to furnish dependable materials to show that at the place of his original admission such facilities are not available and the same are available only at the place where he is seeking migration. Apart from this the MCI through its own agency can ascertain the said facts. On being satisfied about the aforesaid aspects, the Council may exercise its discretion in a judicious manner befitting the case of the candidate to permit migration. " ( 2 ) THE matter was accordingly remitted back to the MCI for fresh consideration with the direction that while passing a fresh order, it shall assign reasons for not accepting the request made by the candidate so that the candidate, if aggrieved, could seek judicial review of the said order. The matter appears to have been considered afresh by the Migration Sub-Committee of the MCI in its meeting held on 3rd of January, 1999. The Committee's decision to decline permission, however, remained unchanged although the reasons underlying the refusal were this time identified. These reasons picked up verbatim from the impugned order are as under :- (1) The medical reports produced by the candidate were nearly one year old showing marginally disturbed renal functions. (2) There was no evidence of deteriorating renal function tests nor were do reports suggest any renal biopsy. The candidate has not submitted fresh reports of renal function tests. (3) The only evidence the candidate has submitted is of renal Pyelonephritis which can be treated anywhere. Al-Ameen Medical College at Bijapur, is an older and well established Medical College having comparatively better facilities for treatment compared to Siddartha Medical College, Tumkur, which is relatively newer College. Since both the Colleges are away from Bangalore, where the candidate is permanently residing transfer from one to the other would make little difference. Based on the said decision of the Sub-Committee, the MCI conveyed a fresh rejection of the request by its communication dated 11th of February, 1999 impugned in this Writ Petition. ( 3 ) MR. Rajagopal, Counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously argued that the reasons advanced by the Sub-Committee of the MCI in support of the rejection of the request were wholly unsustainable. He contended that the petitioner was at no stage asked to furnish fresh reports regarding her ailment to prove the need for continued medical treatment. ( 3 ) MR. Rajagopal, Counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously argued that the reasons advanced by the Sub-Committee of the MCI in support of the rejection of the request were wholly unsustainable. He contended that the petitioner was at no stage asked to furnish fresh reports regarding her ailment to prove the need for continued medical treatment. He contended that Al-Ameen Medical College at Bijapur did not have a Hospital of its own and was dependent on the Government District Hospital at Bijapur. He relied upon the certificate issued by the District Surgeon, Bijapur Annexure-M to the petition, according to which the medical facilities available in the Government Hospital at Bijapur were inadequate for treating the petitioner's ailment. He submitted that the Medical Council had not approached the issue fairly and objectively and that the entire exercise was geared to somehow stick to the earlier view taken by the respondent and reject the request made to it. ( 4 ) REGULATION 6 of the "regulations on Post-Graduate Medical Education, 1997" framed by the MCI deals with migration of candidates from one Medical College to another. It inter alia provides that migration although not a right vested in the student may be permitted in exceptional cases on extreme compassionate grounds provided the criterion prescribed for the purpose is fulfilled. One of the requirements stipulated by the Regulation is that both the Colleges i. e. , one where the student is studying and that to which he/she seeks migration should be recognised by the Medical Council of India. That the candidate should have passed the first Professional MBBS Examination, and should make an application complete in all respects within the time stipulated with an affidavit stating that he/she has pursued 18 months of prescribed studies duly certified by the Registrar of the concerned University. It is not disputed nor was it disputed even in the earlier round of litigation that the procedural requirements and formalities prescribed by the Regulation aforementioned were all satisfied. The only question that arose then and which arises in the present round is whether the petitioner had made out a case for migration on compassionate grounds. The expression compassionate grounds has not been defined by the Regulations. Note-II to Regulation 6, however, broadly indicates the purport of the said expression. It reads thus :-"note 2: Compassionate grounds criteria: (i) Death of a supporting guardian. The expression compassionate grounds has not been defined by the Regulations. Note-II to Regulation 6, however, broadly indicates the purport of the said expression. It reads thus :-"note 2: Compassionate grounds criteria: (i) Death of a supporting guardian. (ii) Illness of the candidate causing disability. (iii) Disturbed conditions as declared by Government in the Medical College area. " ( 5 ) THE petitioner's case as noticed above and as already held by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition, falls in Para-II of Note-II (supra ). According to the petitioners, she suffers from an illness, which is causing a disability for her in pursuing the studies in the Institution to which she has been allotted. The disability of the candidate qualifying for the grant of the permission is closely related to the availability of medical facilities for treatment of the disease at the place, where she is currently studying. If the facilities there are insufficient to effectively deal with the illness suffered by the candidate, it would constitute a disability within the meaning of Para-2 of Note-II to entitle the candidate to seek migration to another place where such facilities are better or at least easily accessible. The crucial question then was whether facilities at Bijapur were sufficient to ensure proper treatment to the petitioner. The Migration Committee appears to be answering that question in the affirmative. In doing so, the only reason advanced by it is that Al-Ameen Medical College at Bijapur, where the petitioner is presently studying is an older Institution in comparison to Siddarth Medical College at Tumkur, which has been established recently. From this, the Committee appears to be inferring that the medical facilities in the former are better than those in the later. There, however, is a basic fallacy in that argument. The Committee, it appears, has remained oblivious of the fact that Al-Ameen College at Bijapur does not have a Hospital of its own. As stated by the petitioner in paragraph-5 of the Writ Petition, the said College is dependent upon the Government District Hospital at Bijapur. The District Surgeon, who heads the said Hospital has certified in unequivocal terms that the facilities in Bijapur are not adequate to treat the disease which the petitioner suffers from. The relevant portion of the certificate reads thus :"i have also gone through the pathological and Microbiological reports. The District Surgeon, who heads the said Hospital has certified in unequivocal terms that the facilities in Bijapur are not adequate to treat the disease which the petitioner suffers from. The relevant portion of the certificate reads thus :"i have also gone through the pathological and Microbiological reports. In my view the medical facilities to treat the above disease at Government Hospital, Bijapur are inadequate. " ( 6 ) IN the light of the above, the view taken by the Committee is rendered wholly unsustainable. The Committee, it appears, cited and relied upon a reason without due and proper verification of the factual basis, on which the same proceeded. Similarly if the Committee was of the view that the documents produced by the petitioner indicating the nature of the illness were not up-to-date to give a clear idea of her present state of health, it should have called upon the candidate to furnish the latest reports. This was necessary if it meant to decide the issue fairly and objectively to come to a conclusion on the basis of facts as they stood on the date of the decision. No intimation regarding the need for further reports was, however, sent to the petitioner at any stage. To reject the request on the ground that the documents produced were obsolete was, therefore, unfair if not improper. ( 7 ) IT was contended by M/s. Shailendra Kumar Counsel for the MCI that the regulations permit migration only in exceptional circumstances which ought to be established to the hilt before an order can be expected by the candidate. It is true that the Regulations do not appear to encourage migration of candidates from one Institution to the other. There may indeed be good reasons to discourage such transfers except where necessary. That does not, however, mean that in genuine cases, where a candidate does satisfy the parameters within which the permission can be granted should also be viewed with a preconceived notion. Migrations, are in the very scheme of the Regulations made permissible only on compassionate grounds. As and when any such ground is called in aid by the candidate, it needs to be examined with compassion instead of adopting an insensitive or wooden attitude towards the request. That is precisely what the Committee and the Council appear to have done in the instant case. As and when any such ground is called in aid by the candidate, it needs to be examined with compassion instead of adopting an insensitive or wooden attitude towards the request. That is precisely what the Committee and the Council appear to have done in the instant case. ( 8 ) WHAT then should be done -- is the next question. In the ordinary course, the matter could have been sent back to the MCI for a fresh consideration, but having regard to the facts that have come to light I consider it unnecessary to remit the matter back to the MCI for a third time. As mentioned earlier, the Medical College at Bijapur and Tumkur have both given their No Objections to the proposed migration. The University of Health Sciences to which the transferee-College is affiliated has also No Objection to the proposed migration. Even the Director of Medical Education has consented to the transfer of the candidate from Bijapur to Tumkur. The documents produced by the petitioner in my opinion, sufficiently show that the petitioner does suffer from an ailment, which requires treatment. They also suggest that facilities in Bijapur are inadequate for any such treatment. That being so, I consider this to be a fit case for granting the permission prayed for by the petitioner. ( 9 ) IN the result, this Writ Petition succeeds. The impugned order issued by the MCI is hereby quashed. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 viz. , the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and Director, Medical Education shall permit the migration of the petitioner from Al-Ameen Medical College, Bijapur to the Siddartha Medical College at Tumkur. The petitioner having passed the 1st year MBBS examination from the former College, shall now be taken in as a 2nd year student of the MBBS in the latter of the Institutions subject to there being a vacancy against which she can be admitted. Since the 2nd Institution is affiliated to the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, the petitioner shall for purposes of her future studies be governed by the Regulations framed by the University in addition to those framed by the MCI in regard to the syllabi, duration of the course and matters incidental thereto. Since the 2nd Institution is affiliated to the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, the petitioner shall for purposes of her future studies be governed by the Regulations framed by the University in addition to those framed by the MCI in regard to the syllabi, duration of the course and matters incidental thereto. Needless to say that upon her admission to the 3rd respondent-College, the respondent-University and the Director shall pass appropriate orders of approval to enable her to complete the course. ( 10 ) NO costs. --- *** --- .